To the Victor Go the Spoils... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-11-2003, 06:07 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 09:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
It just amazes me to think that some countries believe they have a right to US funds....
They have, it's all in the WTO treaty which the US has signed.

From Reuters

Quote:
The preamble to the agreement states that government procurement:

"...should not be prepared, adopted or applied to foreign or domestic products and services and to foreign or domestic suppliers so as to afford protection to domestic products or services or domestic suppliers and should not discriminate among foreign products or services or among foreign suppliers."

...

Governments have to set an appeal process by which aggrieved bidders can challenge procurement decisions and obtain redress in the event these decisions break the accord.
Quote:
But there are circumstances under which signatory countries can set aside the WTO agreement. They are:

-- When it considers it "necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defense purposes."

-- When it is "necessary to protect public morals, order or safety, human, animal or plant life or health or intellectual property; or relating to the products or services of handicapped persons, of philanthropic institutions or of prison labor."
This is why Bush says this is for security reasons.

I've heard on the radio that the EU is going to court with this.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 06:14 PM   #32
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:58 AM
Then, Dreadsox and Sting, how do you explain how Canada is banned from the reconstution of Iraq if they have given 300 million to you for Iraq. Because we didnt come out and publically support the war but financially supported it.

If you take that 300 million and multiply that by 10 (the difference in our economies and population) you get 3 billion.

We have our troops in Afganistan to support your troops so as there are more american troops available for Iraq.

France, Germany and Russia might not have the right to profit from the war because they never invested in it but Canada does.

It all comes down to politics not whats best for Iraq. Many people figure Canada has the best trained pipeliners in the world and they are courted by many big US companies, they would be the best for the job, but that doesnt seem important. What seems important is that people who publically supported this war, regardless of qualifications for the jobs, will receive them.

Its just not right.
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 06:21 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Look, I don't care about the money, but this bullshit that Canadian subcontracting would be a security risk to the US is not only a big, fat lie, but incredibly insulting to Canada and its people.

Bush isn't man enough to come out and outline the real reason he's blocking bids, so they made up some baloney. The man's a character, but as for having character, that's a whole other story.

Lame.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 06:25 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Sorry....Why should my $$$$ wind up in their pocketbooks?
Yet mine can go towards the $300 million rebuilding effort, essentially helping out not only Iraq, but the USA, the very country which considers my nation to be a "security risk?"

I'm all for sending the $300 million to Iraq, because that's what's called being a bigger person. But this whole sad sob story about taxpayers is kind of insulting considering that Canadian taxpayers are doing a lot all the while being insulted and being called security risks. We're such security risks in fact that the Canadians are leading the peacekeeping forces in Kabul with 2000 men. What garbage.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 06:29 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Ummm....Reread what I typed....My post was not directed at Canada.....I am trying to figure out why they would exclude Canada. I agree with you. Afghanastan and the Money alone should include you in this.

The ONLY logical case to include the other nations is to begin to repair old wounds but, but the soldiers dying over there just should not be there for the countries that did not want to help.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 06:30 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:58 AM
hmmm....one of my posts is missing.....I guess you cannot reread it...I responded to Bonoman.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 06:38 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am trying to figure out why they would exclude Canada.
There is no reasonable reason whatsoever except the pettiness of the administration and the fact that Bush has never liked our Prime Minister and has STILL, more than 3 years after being elected not come to Canada, and refuses to do so until we have a new PM (as of tomorrow). Members of the Canadian parliament haven't helped matters either, by publically having referred to Bush as a "moron," a "failed statesman" and to "American bastards." It's been a tense relationship ever since Clinton left office, from Kyoto to unfair softwood lumber tariffs, to decriminalization of marijuana being a "threat" to American war on drugs, to gay marriage, to a bunch of issues.

Bush is a petty man, but if you read Canadian news reports, it seems there is already some backtracking on excluding Canada.

From Newsday:

Quote:
U.S. officials dropped hints Thursday that the eligibility list for Iraqi contracts was subject to change, prompting speculation that an exception might be made for Canada -- and its incoming pro-American prime minister.

Chretien said Bush confirmed Canada's eligibility in a farewell phone call Thursday. Asked about Chretien's comment, the White House refused to discuss.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 07:18 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 AM
BonoVoxSupastar,

If you read all my posts in here, you will see that I am not contradicting myself. My arguement has never been to EXCLUDE ALL countries from the bidding process. Yes, I did say I would like to see US companies get US Taxpayers money, But I never said other members of the Coalition should be excluded from the bidding process!

There are a lot of people that hate the Bush administration, but hatred of other countries is not the motivator for restricting the number of countries that can bid on the contracts.

If an when Germany, France, and Russia decide they finally want to spend some of their own money and troops to help secure and rebuild Iraq, then I think they should then be open to the bidding process. Forgiving Iraq's debts could also be a factor as well. Unfortunately, these countries have not sent any aid to the Iraqi people and attempted from a diplomatic standpoint to keep the Iraqi people under Saddam's rule. Allowing them to now bid and profit when they have not offered to help themselves with money and troops would be huge mistake and a risky model for future foreign policy.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 07:22 PM   #39
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:58 AM
Well Sting what about Canada?

Because Canada didnt pledge Political support but only 300 million and troops in Afganistan, should they be like France, Geremany and Russia?
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 07:30 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 AM
iacrobat,

Lets get some things straight here. The UNITED STATES is spending over 60 Billion dollars in Iraq for reconstruction and security for the people of Iraq. THERE ARE NO STRINGS ATTACHED! Iraq will get the money and as long as Bush has his way with congress, and will never have to repay a dime of it!

When I said it was not a question of the well being of the Iraqi people, I was reffering to which companies could bid for the contracts. The money to rebuild Iraq from the Iraqi people has already been awarded by the US government to Iraq. The only question is which companies get to do the rebuilding. It would be stupid to allow countries that did everything they could diplomatically to prevent the overthrow of Saddam and have not spent any money or sent any troops to aid in development, to be able to all of a sudden make a large profit with US taxpayers money. It would set a terrible precident for the future if countries that do nothing to help and actually try to obstruct the enforcement of UN resolutions are now allowed to profit!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 07:35 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Rono,

The Iraqi's are not spending the money, the United States is. The USA will spend over 60 Billion dollars this year to help rebuild and secure Iraq. Private companies will do a lot of the rebuilding and I think it is a good idea to restrict US Taxpayer dollars to those countries that have sent troops, fought in the war, support it, sent money, or done something else to actively support the process.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 07:41 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 AM
DrTeeth,

I would consider it a security risk from the standpoint that it sets a bad example for the future if countries think they can get away with trying to diplomatically obstruct the enforcement of UN resolutions, do nothing from the standpoint of money and troops to help in the aftermath, and then be allowed to come in with their companies to cash in.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 07:47 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 AM
bonoman,

Since Canada has sent 300 million dollars in support for rebuilding, I think Canadian companies should be allowed to bid for the contracts.

If Germany, France, and Russia would change their policies about sending troops, money, and forgiving Iraqi debts, then maybe the US should consider letting them bid.

Right now, BUSTER has done more for Iraq than Germany, France or Russia!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 09:42 PM   #44
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:58 AM
OK Sting, i have finally witnessed you give up on a point. It was a long time coming my friend!

But today it came out that Haliburton OVERCHARGED the US govt in it roll to rebuild Iraq. Will you now consent that the bidding process is flawed and that maybe companies with a little integrety would be first to bid, rather then their location?
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-11-2003, 10:52 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 AM
bonoman,

Its still an open question as whether they really overcharged. There is nothing wrong with the bidding process and as long as there is some oversight, any problems should be kept to a minimum.

There are plenty of companies with integrety in the 63 nation coalition.

I do question the integrety of French companies that may have sold or gave Saddam, Rolland missiles just months before the war, in total violation of the 1990 weapons embargo placed on Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait. My friends saw the missiles while they were in Iraq, which were built by the French in 2002.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com